By Chaaru Gupta
Judges have to make life-changing decisions on a routine basis, and that too, for others. Ideally, they have to listen to both the sides, balance them out and give the decision. In this whole process, they have to be neutral and remain detached from the situation.[1] But is it possible for a human being to forget his background- social, emotional or biological, and act in the capacity of merely a judge, especially on an everyday basis? Studies suggest that 9 out of 10 times, a person’s decisions are influenced by numerous factors, mainly their emotions and pre-conceived notions.[2] One of the significant factors which affect the decision making is the mental health of the judge. In this article, the author aims to discuss the various ways in which a judge’s mental health is affected, consequently affecting their decisions and the steps which can be taken to lessen the burden.
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), mental health is “a state of well-being in which every individual realizes his or her own potential, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and fruitfully, and is able to make a contribution to her or his community.”[3] In common parlance, it includes a person’s social, psychological and emotional well-being.
Mental health is a vital part of one’s life as it impacts a person’s thoughts and consequently, decision making.[4] Good mental health helps increase a person’s productivity and effectiveness in day-to-day activities.[5] It leads to quality decision making and allows the person to adapt to changes and cope with adversity.[6] On the other hand, poor mental health results in lowered productivity social problems, vulnerability to abuse, impulsive actions and additional health problems like eating disorders.[7] Mental health problems represent 5 of the 10 leading causes of disability worldwide, amounting to nearly one-third of the disability in the world[8], and the global burden of mental health diseases is expected to increase in the coming decade.[9]
Mental Health is greatly associated with one’s profession so it is not a surprise that many psychologists and therapists treat a great number of doctors on a daily basis.[10] Systematic reviews conducted on medical professionals have revealed that the environment in which doctors work has had a significant impact on them, resulting in a consistent decline in their ability to empathize with their patients.[11] It will be fair to draw an analogy between a judge and a doctor. As both the professions include dealing with human beings, life and death, trauma of the people involved in the matter and the pressure of deciding someone’s fate.
Dealing with matters of divorce, child abuse, domestic violence, rape and murder constitute a judge’s day. In addition to this, there are India’s rapidly increasing number of pending cases and long hours of the job.[12] This makes patience and detachment necessary tools for a judge to fulfil their duties. In this way, judges are no different from doctors. However, these tools are not always available or may not be enough to deal with the sheer volume and extreme nature of cases that a judge has to deal with.[13] Judges go through what is called as ‘Judicial Distress’. Judicial Distress is “any condition, problem, or situation that impairs a judge’s ability to carry out his/her judicial functions or poses a challenge to the judge’s physical or emotional stability.”[14] Judicial Distress is the ramification of a number of factors.
1.Vicarious Trauma- Vicarious Trauma or Secondary Traumatic Stress (STS) is “the trauma suffered by health and justice system professionals who must listen to accounts and watch videos or pictures of traumatic situations such as abuse, rape, torture, and murder.”[15] It is basically going through all the trauma of the victims, but vicariously. Many studies have been conducted to understand the impact of STS on doctors, police, therapists, shelter workers, and emergency relief workers, however, study of its impact on the life of the judges is still at a nascent stage.[16] Judges listen to accounts of rape victims, abused children, torture victims and grieving families on a daily basis. Continuous exposure to STS can lead to negative impact on a person’s life.[17] It has the potential to seriously damage a judge’s overall mental health.
2. Decision Fatigue- Decision fatigue is the “deterioration of one’s ability to make good decisions after a long session of decision making.”[18] No matter how rational and intelligent a person is, s/he can’t take decision after decision without paying a biological price.[19] A person is aware when s/he is suffering physical fatigue but decision fatigue is hard to detect because it is more difficult to realize that one is “low on mental energy.”[20] With every choice/decision a person makes, the next one becomes harder for the brain to decide. First of all, a judge has to take a number of decisions every day. The mental work of deciding case after case, irrespective of the individual merits, wears down the judges. In addition to that, a judge is aware of the impact his/her decisions have on the lives of the people. This adds pressure to be impartial and fair and take “the right decisions”.[21]
A pattern was noticed in the decisions of a parole board, based on the timing of the decisions. It was observed that judges approved parole in about a third of the cases, but the “probability of being paroled fluctuated wildly throughout the day.”[22] The probability of getting parole by the prisoners who appeared early during the day was higher.[23] Here, there is nothing to be malicious about the judge but this can be considered as a result of decision fatigue.[24] Justice S. Muralidhar in his farewell speech at Delhi High Court addressed this issue by saying “Judging is, without question, not an easy task. It involves a daily onslaught of negative emotions brought to the court by anxious, and often frustrated, litigants seeking justice. It is possible that many of the physical ailments of judges are on account of having to withstand the negative energies. Maintaining equanimity and calm through the day, case after case, is indeed a big challenge.”[25]
3. Pressure- A judge faces pressure from different areas. A pressure that is inherent in a judge’s work is the internal and external pressure to be impartial, neutral and give the ‘right decision’.[26] No matter what, at least one party is disappointed in any case. In addition to this, judges are always under public scrutiny, especially in high-profile cases.[27] Usually, there is dissatisfaction among the masses leading to the criticism of the decisions. This is because a judge has to give the decisions on the basis of constitutional morality, which does not always coincide with societal morality.[28] Furthermore, a judge’s safety is at risk in cases where politicians, gangsters and other influential people are involved. One such example is the case of Gurmeet Ram Rahim v. Central Bureau of Investigation.[29] In this case, the judge giving the ruling had to be flown to the court in a helicopter and was given a Z+ security cover because of threats to his life by the accused followers.[30] Justice Chandrachud revealed that he received vile threats after his opinion in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. The State of Kerala[31] (Sabarimala) judgment, which allowed the entry of women in the Sabarimala temple, which was earlier denied. Justice Chandrachud stated “After the judgment, my interns, my law clerks told me: Listen, I hope you are not on social media. I said I’m not – except the WhatsApp messages I get from family and friends. And they said, ‘Please don’t. It’s scary. The amount of vile threats, abuse which you have received, it is scary’. They said we haven’t slept because we fear for the safety of the judges.”[32] This risk to the safety and security of the judge and his or her family adds to the pressure as well.
The Way Forward
Judicial distress affects a judge’s ability to do their job competently. A judge’s unstable mental health can have serious consequences on all the stakeholders of the judicial system including the faith of the public in the judiciary.[33] There is a need to take this into account and take measures to prevent or lessen judicial distress. One of the steps which can be undertaken is to have a mandatory counselling centre in courts, with professional counsellors and therapists. Further, help can be provided to not only the judges but also the other stakeholders like the litigants. For instance, the Bombay High Court inaugurated a first of its kind, counselling centre inside the court’s premises.[34] The project – called Sukoon – is collaboration between the School of Human Ecology, Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) and the Mariwala Health Initiative (MHI).[35] It aims to aid the court’s process by looking at mental healthcare within the system, with free counselling services. There is also a need to increase the number of judges in the country to reduce the pressure and burden put upon a single judge. This has the potential to significantly reduce the judicial distress faced by the judges, in addition to the agony of the other stakeholders of the judicial system.
Conclusion
A decision by the Supreme Court is not just for the parties involved in that particular matter. Due to the power of precedent, it affects every other person similarly situated who will come to the court next time. This is why a judge cannot afford to let her mental health come in the way of dispensing justice. Judges are the people who instil public confidence in the judicial system of the country. However, judges are human beings too and consequently, they are influenced by a number of factors while making a decision including their mental health. It is of utmost importance that we acknowledge and understand the concept of judicial distress so that steps can be undertaken to control it before there is serious damage to the judicial system in the country.
Institutional considerations and reforms with respect to the mental health of the judges are vital for the health of the Judiciary.
The author, Chaaru Gupta, is currently a law student at the National Law University (NLUJ), Jodhpur.
[1] Alexander B. Smith and Abraham S. Blumberg, The Problem of Objectivity in Judicial Decision-Making, Social Forces 46 no. 1, 96-105 (1967).
[2] DeSteno D, Petty RE, Wegener DT, Rucker DD, Beyond valence in the perception of likelihood: The role of emotion specificity, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78, 397-416 (2000).
[3] World Health Organisation, Mental health: strengthening our response, March 30, 2018 available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/mental-health-strengthening-our-response#:~:text=Mental%20health%20is%20a%20state,to%20his%20or%20her%20community. (Last visited on February 1, 2021).
[4] Vappu Taipale, Mental Health and Quality of Mental Health Care, 20 Med. & L. 531 (2001).
[5] Mental Health Foundation, What is good mental health? available at: https://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/your-mental-health/about-mental-health/what-good-mental-health#:~:text=Good%20mental%20health%20is%20characterised,maintain%20good%20relationships%20with%20others (Last visited October 10, 2020).
[6] Id.
[7] Unite For Sight, Introduction to Global Mental Health: Effects of Mental Health on Individuals and Populations available at: https://www.uniteforsight.org/mental-health/module1 (Last visited on February 1, 2021).
[8] Prince, M., M.R. et al., No health without mental health, Lancet, 370(9590), 859-77 (2007).
[9] Id.
[10] Harvard Health Publishing, Mental health problems in the workplace, February 2010 available at: https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/mental-health-problems-in-the-workplace (Last visited October 13, 2020).
[11] Caroline Elton, ‘Also Human: The Inner Lives of Doctors’, 2018 mentioned in Justice Anand Venkatesh, ‘Their Lordships are “also Humans”, writes Justice Anand Venkatesh’, Bar and Bench (March 28, 2020) available at: https://www.barandbench.com/columns/their-lordships-are-also-humans-writes-justice-anand-venkatesh
[12] Judge Simon Marstiller, An ounce of Prevention: Knowing the causes and signs of judicial distress, and getting help before impairment leads to an ethics complaint, 31 Counterbalance 8 pg 4 (2015).
[13] The Hindu, Data | 77 cases filed in the 1950s still pending in courts across India, July 29, 2020 available at: https://www.thehindu.com/data/data-77-cases-filed-in-the-1950s-still-pending-in-courts-across-india/article32219415.ece (October 9, 2020).
[14] Isaiah M. Zimmerman, Helping Judges in Distress, 90 Judicature 10 (2006).
[15] Judge Simon Marstiller, An ounce of Prevention: Knowing the causes and signs of judicial distress, and getting help before impairment leads to an ethics complaint, 31 Counterbalance 8 pg 4 (2015).
[16] Peter G. Jaffe , Claire V. Crooks, Billie Lee Dunford-Jackson & Michael Town, Vicarious Trauma in Judges: The Personal Challenge of Dispensing Justice, 54 Juv. & Fam. Ct. J. 1 (2003).
[17] Jennifer Brobst, The Impact of Secondary Traumatic Stress among Family Attorneys Working with Trauma-Exposed Clients: Implications for Practice and Professional Responsibility, 10 J. Health & Biomedical L. 1 (2014).
[18] Forbes, How to Identify When You’re Experiencing Decision Fatigue, May 13, 2019 available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/womensmedia/2019/05/13/how-to-identify-when-youre-experiencing-decision-fatigue/#59ca20497fb4 (Last visited October 11, 2020).
[19] Id.
[20] Lee Norton, Jennifer Johnson & George Woods, Burnout and Compassion Fatigue: What Lawyers Need to Know, 84 Umkc L. Rev. 987 (2016).
[21] Judge Simon Marstiller, An ounce of Prevention: Knowing the causes and signs of judicial distress, and getting help before impairment leads to an ethics complaint, 31 Counterbalance 8 pg 4 (2015).
[22] New York Times Magazine, Do You Suffer From Decision Fatigue?, August 17, 2011 available at:
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/magazine/do-you-suffer-from-decision-fatigue.html (Last visited October 12, 2020).
[23] Id.
[24] Id.
[25] The Hindu, ‘Constitutional values are tested in the courts’: Excerpts from Justice S. Muralidhar’s farewell speech, March 08, 2020 available at: https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/constitutional-values-are-tested-in-the-courts-excerpts-from-justice-s-muralidhars-farewell-speech/article31014294.ece (Last visited October 12, 2020).
[26] Timothy J. Capurso, How Judges Judge: Theories on Judicial Decision Making, 29 U. BALT. L.F. 5 (1999).
[27] The Telegraph online, Judges not immune to scrutiny, say lawyers, October 12, 2020 available at: https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/judges-not-immune-to-scrutiny-say-lawyers/cid/1789378 (Last visited October 12, 2020).
[28] Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, AIR 2018 SC 4321.
[29] Gurmeet Ram Rahim v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2015 (1) RCR (Criminal) 316.
[30] The Economic Times, Judge Jagdeep Singh, who sentenced Ram Rahim, gets Z+ security cover, August 31, 2017 available at: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/special-judge-jagdeep-singh-who-sentenced-ram-rahim-gets-z-cover/articleshow/60304144.cms (Last visited October 12, 2020)
[31] Indian Young Lawyers Association v. The State of Kerala, 2018 (8) SCJ 609.
[32] The Economic Times, A yr after Sabarimala verdict, Justice DY Chandrachud reveals he received vile threats, was advised not to see social media, September 20, 2019 available at:
[33] The Hindu, Faith in judiciary, March 09, 2020 available at: https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/letters/faith-in-judiciary/article31017217.ece (Last visited October 13, 2020).
[34] The Quint, How the Bombay High Court is Prioritising Mental Health, May 21, 2019 available at: https://fit.thequint.com/health-news/bombay-high-court-counselling-center#read-more
[35] Id.
The Journal of Indian Law and Society 
One thought on “The Judiciary and Mental Health”